Jury Nullification

[V4Vendetta]

I'm not sure if anyone else knows about this so I thought I'd post it seeing as how it is so important if any of us are ever on a jury.

"In our legal system, juries have a power known as “nullification”. This means that any single juror may refuse to convict a defendant of a crime if that juror believes the law in question is unconstitutional. In effect, a jury can overturn any act of congress or any decision of the Supreme Court.

In London, William Penn was tried in 1671 for the crime of preaching an “illegal” religion. His jury was rightfully incensed and refused to convict him, despite being denied by the court food, water and toilet facilities for several days. The jury was later fined and imprisoned for failing to convict Penn until England’s highest court confirmed their right to nullify the law. And you thought our legal system was heavy handed!

In one of the more famous American instances, John Peter Zenger was acquitted of a seditious liable charge against the Royal Governor of New York (no, not Pataki – someone much more level headed and just). Zenger had published a number of articles critical of the Governor, and had the audacity of using facts to support his claims. The crown arrested and tried him in 1734.
You might say the court, being an appointment by the crown, was less than helpful to Zenger’s cause. The judge told the jury that “Truth is no defense.” In other words, it did not matter if what Zenger had printed was true, it was against the law to print those truths, and the jury was told to disregard this particular nit-pick. Fortunately for Zenger, he had Andrew Hamilton as his attorney. Hamilton told the jury the story of William Penn and how they had the power to acquit Zenger. The Zenger jury followed suit.

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors need not be told that they have this power. At this time, the once standard procedure of educating jurors about all of their options began to decay. Judges have been known to reprimand attorneys for reminding jurors of their right, and because of this many otherwise competent defense attorneys refuse to do so.

The situation has devolved to the point where the California Supreme Court
(a body not known for their adherence to traditional thinking on the topic of law, the constitution, or sanity) recently upheld the dismissal of a juror who was exercising his rights. Thankfully all other courts remain supportive of this fundamental precept of American law. As recently as 1972, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted: “ . . . unreviewable and irreversible . . . power to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. . .” (473 F. 2d 1113) John Jay

As you can imagine, this is not as easy as it sounds. The tough part will be getting on the jury. Lawyers, regardless of if they represent the defendant or the government, will avoid mentioning nullification. The District Attorney doesn’t want the jury to know they have this power, and the defense attorney doesn’t want to violate any of the judge’s prohibitions on the subject. Your first course of action is to shut up! You are under no obligation to tell either attorney anything they do not inquire about. If they don’t ask your opinion about the 2 nd Amendment, then don’t get tossed off the jury by volunteering a patriotic monolog on the subject during jury selection. Likewise, unless specifically asked about your understanding of the concept of jury nullification, then keep off the subject. But a prosecuting attorney may ask questions that probe the subject. Never, under any circumstance lie about your opinions or knowledge. Doing so is wrong, illegal, and merely
drops you to the level of the gun grabbers. But listen to the questions carefully, and answer in a way that is truthful yet avoids disclosing your newfound education on the function of the jury in rectifying the constitution.
Finally, you may have a tough time in the jury room. Judges have become fond of falsely instructing jurors that they must decide a case based solely on “the facts.” The other eleven jurors may take this literally given the widespread ignorance about jury nullification. It is not advised that you take literature about nullification into the jury room, but you can be authoritative and take this knowledge with you to educate others.

See the following link for more information.

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

 

[gc70]

I would never say a word about nullification if I was serving on a jury. Jurors are routinely dismissed for not being "right-thinking" or kowtowing to judges' instructions. Use your knowledge of jury nullification, but don't talk about it.

In the past few days, I read a news article about a juror who used a dictionary to look up a word's meaning. When the judge found out, the juror was reprimanded and told to pose questions to the judge, who would provide officially-approved answers.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Jury Nullification.
The two greatest words in American Jurisprudence.
I was on a jury that did it once. Judge went crazy, proscutor screaming for a mistrial. It was great. We all sat there and just smiled.
Nobody could do a thing. Guy walked.

AFS

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yes, the jury was designed to be the last refuge of the individual against tyrannical government. It is the only manifestation of the full and direct sovereignty of the people, given raw expression. All elements of government are imperfect expressions of popular sovereignty, but a jury is pure and direct. Since it is a manifestation of pure popular sovereignty, it is authorized to, in effect, over turn any law established by less perfect manifestations of same, at least in individual cases as needed.

As for juries in general, however, we don't any longer really enjoy the right to be judged by a jury of our peers in this nation. A jury of our peers would be selected at random from the community in which the crime was allegedly committed. Today, however, anyone who might actually demonstrate wisdom, intelligence, knowledge or good judgment is eliminated before the trial begins. What's left is a group of people easily manipulated by the system, and very unlikely to know anything, or care anything, about the working of the judicial system, American history, or, least of all, jury nullification.

 

[V4Vendetta]

"Today, however, anyone who might actually demonstrate wisdom, intelligence, knowledge or good judgment is eliminated before the trial begins. What's left is a group of people easily manipulated by the system, and very unlikely to know anything, or care anything, about the working of the judicial system, American history, or, least of all, jury nullification."


That's why I posted this information. Print it out & hand it to people on flyers if you can. That's what I try to do.

 

[Cosmoline]

A single juror can potentially hang the trial, though not in all states. To nullify the jury itself must agree to a not guilty verdict. The OJ Simpson case is one recent example of a nullification for political reasons. More typically juries will nullify where they think the killing was good in spite of its technical illegality. In other words, the victim really needed killing. An example of this would be a local bully who threatened people over and over again without ever quite crossing the line into actually posing an imminent deadly threat, the law did nothing about it, and one man decided to take care of the problem. Technically it's first degree murder, but the jury may decide the victim is better off in the ground. Those are all fairly rare, however, and that's the way it should be. Unless you just want to toss out the penal code and forget the rule of law completely.

In the past few days, I read a news article about a juror who used a dictionary to find out what a word meant. When the judge found out, the juor was reprimanded and told to pose questions to the judge, who would provide officially-approved answers.

That's because you can't dig around in Websters and expect to find reliable definitions for legal terms. In the case you're talking about a man's life is in the balance, so jurors shouldn't be trying to define terms in the instructions on their own. Otherwise why bother to instruct them at all? Just throw the law out the window and let them rule based solely on their own feelings and prejudices. That's fricking brilliant :banghead:

 

[gc70]

Otherwise why bother to instruct them at all?

Yes, it is necessary for jurors to scrupulously follow the judge's instructions; otherwise, how could juries possibly reach the "right" verdict? Actually, it would be much more efficient if the professionals were allowed to administer the law without the inept interference of common citizens.

Just throw the law out the window and let them rule based solely on their own feelings and prejudices. That's fricking brilliant

No, that's fricking jury nullification.

 

[Flyboy]

As for juries in general, however, we don't any longer really enjoy the right to be judged by a jury of our peers in this nation.

You've never had the right to a "jury of your peers" in this country--or, more precisely, all juries are composed of your peers. The "of your peers" bit is part of English law, not American, and it refers to Lords and commoners--the right was a guarantee that Lords wouldn't be tried by commoners.

In this country, we have no such nobility, so a jury "of your peers" really is anybody, and those words never appear in the Constitution or Amendments.

 

[Cosmoline]

gc70-- If you don't want the judge to instruct the jury on the law, and you don't want the jury to pay any attention to the law, WHY HAVE ANY CRIMINAL LAWS AT ALL? Nullification should be reserved for those rare occassions where the jury understands the law but decides for the greater good it cannot be enforced.

This business of not instructing juries is madness and actually has nothing to do with nullification. If you're just going to toss the jury a copy of websters and have them take their best guess at what law they're enforcing, you might as well give up on trials and just go back to the days of execution by village mob.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You've never had the right to a "jury of your peers" in this country--or, more precisely, all juries are composed of your peers. The "of your peers" bit is part of English law, not American, and it refers to Lords and commoners--the right was a guarantee that Lords wouldn't be tried by commoners.

In this country, we have no such nobility, so a jury "of your peers" really is anybody, and those words never appear in the Constitution or Amendments.

Very well, substitute "impartial jury" for jury of one's peers. My point is that the protections once attached to a trial by jury have been eroded by all of the ways in which jury pools are narrowed down. The process favors the selection of people who are easily manipulated.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

I think the concept of jury nullification is terrific. It allows one ordinary man in the street to nullify some of those laws that are generated solely for the aggrandisement of the political class. I can picture someone sitting on the jury panel, after the "not guilty" verdict was read, with a KMA grin on his face and nothing the politically appointed hack judge or the meatwhistle prosecutor could do about it.

 

[k_semler]

Fully Informed Jury Assosiation Interview Conducted by JPFO.

http://www.fija.org

 

[CypherNinja]

My uncle is a venture capitalist here in Cleveland. He's been selected for jury duty 3 times. Every time he was screened out the instant they heard what he did. Never spent more than a day there.

 

[Travis Lee]

Ultimately, the PEOPLE define what the law is.

Police, judges, prosecutors act for the PEOPLE.

Seems like they resent that fact.

--Travis--

 

[gc70]

gc70-- If you don't want the judge to instruct the jury on the law, and you don't want the jury to pay any attention to the law, WHY HAVE ANY CRIMINAL LAWS AT ALL?

I did not say that. Judges should instruct juries about the law and juries should generally decide cases based on the application of the law to the facts of the case.

I object to judges' instructions extending beyond the law and into the minutae of how juries reach decisions, particularly when such detailed instructions form a narrow path to the verdict the judge believes should be returned. If judges are allowed to create instructions that inevitably lead to predetermined verdicts, there is little reason to maintain the sham of jury deliberation.

Nullification should be reserved for those rare occassions where the jury understands the law but decides for the greater good it cannot be enforced.

Agreed.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If judges are allowed to create instructions that inevitably lead to predetermined verdicts, there is little reason to maintain the sham of jury deliberation.

Which is exactly why we have juries. Good point. Juries were put there to interpose popular sovereignty between an unjust law and a defendant.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Nullification should be reserved for those rare occassions where the jury understands the law but decides for the greater good it cannot be enforced.

Or for those occasions when the jury doesn't understand the law because the law doesn't make any sense, or the jury doesn't understand the law the way the judge explained it ... also probably because the law doesn't make any sense.

 

[Wiley]

In Georgia the Consitution states that a juror is the judge of the facts and the law (Article 1 Section 1 Paragarph 13(b))

 

[Cosmoline]

Ultimately, the PEOPLE define what the law is.

Through their elected representatives, the last time I checked the Constitutions of the US and Alaska. Jury nullification doesn't give juries the power to rewrite or redefine bupkus. It's simply their discretion to refuse to impose criminal sanctions on a particular defendant. It's analogous to prosecutorial discretion, but harder to apply and far more binding.

Or for those occasions when the jury doesn't understand the law because the law doesn't make any sense, or the jury doesn't understand the law the way the judge explained it ... also probably because the law doesn't make any sense.

Certainly, if they think the law is so confusing or bizarre that it should not be enforced that would be grounds for nullification. The tax code provides ample examples. But this is not the same as rewriting the law, nor does it give jurors free reign to ignore the instructions.

 

[lee n. field]

I would never say a word about nullification if I was serving on a jury. Jurors are routinely dismissed for not being "right-thinking" or kowtowing to judges' instructions. Use your knowledge of jury nullification, but don't talk about it.

In Ill-i-noise, the times I have been called, there was a question right up front that was specifically designed to weed out anybody inclined to jury nullification.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If they have a question to weed out those would might nullify, then lie.

 

[Sindawe]

If they have a question to weed out those would might nullify, then lie.

While that road is High and ethical, the footing is treacherous and the fall long. I'm not trained in the law, but I think that might be taken as perjury if the juror is discovered to have lied in their answers to the court. At leat one person has been prosecuted for "concealing the truth" by not answering a question which she was not asked. Google up Laura Krihosome time. In the end the conviction was overturned IIRC, but there was still a chance she might have served so jail time.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But this is not the same as rewriting the law, nor does it give jurors free reign to ignore the instructions.

But it DOES give jurors free reign to ignore the instructions. That is precisely what jury nullification is all about, and that is why judges don't tell juries that they (the jurors) have the right. It can even be argued that it is not so much a right as a duty.

The basis is (as was pointed out in the GA state constitution) the fact that the jury is to be the trier of both the facts and the law. But the judges tell the jury that the judge is the trier of the law, and tha jury is to decide only on the basis of the facts, according to the law as explained by the judge. That's simply not what the laws say -- that's only what the judges say.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right of jury nullification exists. Inexplicably, they then ruled that, although the right exists, judges do not have to tell the juries that the right exists. The fact that those of us who know about the right of jury nullification also know that the judges intentionally deceive jurors regarding what discretion the jurors hold is IMHO reason enough to ignore any instructions a judge might give.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

While that road is High and ethical, the footing is treacherous and the fall long. I'm not trained in the law, but I think that might be taken as perjury if the juror is discovered to have lied in their answers to the court. At leat one person has been prosecuted for "concealing the truth" by not answering a question which she was not asked. Google up Laura Krihosome time. In the end the conviction was overturned IIRC, but there was still a chance she might have served so jail time.

Firstly, I apologize for the crazy grammar. I was in a rush, typed it out, submitted it, and ran. Looks wacky, but you got my drift.

Secondly, let me address the ethics of what I said: In my opinion, in this context it is no less ethical to lie than it would be for a resident of Nazi Germany to lie to the Gestapo about whether or not they are hiding Jews in their attic.

Now for the legality of what I said: This inquiry does not deal with observable or measurable facts, so it cannot be refuted. If I asked you, a potential jury member, if you believe in jury nullification, and you say no, but actually you did, how is that going to be proven? In fact, for all anyone knows, it could very well be that you did not believe in it at the time asked, and then ten seconds later you thought about it and changed your mind. Our views and opinions are entirely our own. We cannot be charged with perjury for stating an opinion that we don't actually hold. Opinions can change with the winds, from moment to moment. In short, I defy you to give me an example of how anyone could be prosecuted for perjury for expressing an opinion they didn't actually hold at the time asked.

 

[Malice]

Here's how I see it.

When I think about it, am a fan of jury nullification and better juries (randomly selected sounds good). I would love to be on a jury where a little old lady withougha CHL is on trial for carrying a .38 in her purse while walking through the ghetto to pick up her arthritis meds. I would love to hang the jury or aquitt her based on jury nullification.

But when I think about it MORE (Niccotine in cigarettes affects the brain and makes it more conductive to critical thinking and aids memorization... who knew?) I start to see bad things happening. I imagine a randomly selected, unscreened jury on a case where a creep molested a bunch of 6 year old boys, and it is obvious he is guilty. Then I see the NAMBLA member on the jury who made it there because there was no screening.

Then I do not like it so much. I am not saying jury nullification is bad. I am saying that good things sometimes have unintended consequences.